maker - 1-23-2009 at 03:51 AM
Some one of my friends has Oud, it was manufactured by Mr. Tawfeeq Nahhat, it is old one and it was manufactured on 1920
The Oud was repaired before but that repair was not good, and they damaged it.
And because I am a Oud maker, he bring his Oud to me to repair it again.
These are some pictures of repair operation
Repair Nahat Oud
maker - 1-23-2009 at 04:12 AM
Repair Nahat Oud
maker - 1-23-2009 at 04:13 AM
Repair Nahat Oud
maker - 1-23-2009 at 04:14 AM
Repair Nahat Oud
maker - 1-23-2009 at 04:16 AM
Repair Nahat Oud
maker - 1-23-2009 at 04:17 AM
francis - 2-5-2009 at 10:23 AM
Hello Maker.
Have you worked on this Nahat?
Is the repairing finished now?
Could you tell us what you have done , and may be send some pictures.
It's always so instructive to speak about oud repairing....
Repair Nahat Oud
maker - 3-14-2009 at 12:29 PM
Repair Nahat Oud
maker - 3-14-2009 at 12:30 PM
Repair Nahat Oud
maker - 3-14-2009 at 12:31 PM
Repair Nahat Oud
maker - 3-14-2009 at 12:33 PM
Repair Nahat Oud
maker - 3-14-2009 at 12:34 PM
Repair Nahat Oud
maker - 3-14-2009 at 12:34 PM
aytayfun - 3-15-2009 at 10:36 AM
Dear Ahmad. As you know Nahat ouds are the valuable ouds.
I just want to know why did you changed teh fingerboard with an extended one and how did you changes it. Did youe remove the old one or did you just
put an extended fingerboard on to the old one. And the bridge of course. Did you change it or just sand and put a mother of pearl.
Thank you.
Repairs
spyrosc - 3-15-2009 at 11:59 PM
I'm sorry to say this, and I realize it's a personal opinion, but I think the fingerboard change was a disaster!
The oud lost all of its Nahat look. Now it looks weird.
I understand the repair of the Shamsiya and the mizrab, but the fingerboard should have been claned up and left alone. The repair person should have
had more respect for tradition.
I personally think the oud lost its value.
Spyros C.
Faladel - 3-16-2009 at 09:51 AM
Dear maker:
I have already said it in another forum, the oud has lost his historical value, because in this type of repairs, it is necessary to respect the
original and not to add anything that he could attack to his aspect, the work of the master is sacred .
suz_i_dil - 3-16-2009 at 09:56 AM
It is only a personnal opinion, but I think it is a good restoration if it allow the player to enjoy more his instrument.
I asked before and the general opinion is that the extended fingerboard doesn't alterate the sound of the instrument, and here the soundboard has been
kept all original...to my point much more better than some restoration changing the whole soundboard but keeping the original design...the sound is
then totally lost.
aytayfun - 3-16-2009 at 11:04 AM
All I can say that extending the fingerboard of a historicaly valued oud is a a disaster. It
is my tought that all the Nahats and other old timers must kept original even they look so bad. I can understand to change the rosettes, bridge
aytayfun - 3-16-2009 at 11:10 AM
(Sorry of my finger that accidentaly push the post reply button ). of an old beauty during restoration. But it is inacceptable to replace the
fingerboard with an extended one. Because during construction of the oud attaching neck to the oud requires different neck heigtness wheter the oud
will have an extended or normal fingerboard. I think the old timers and masters will explain this more techniqualy. However, the repair for this oud
is a master piece I will not argeu the oud is still a NAHAT or NOT.
suz_i_dil - 3-16-2009 at 11:46 AM
I won't argue also on such a subject...
Around the same subject , as an other exemple, I've been told on this board Simon Shaheen oud is also a Nahat. I was indeed surprised for such a
tenant of tradition by seeing he also asked for such a fingerboard on it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mNxwgAmTKM&feature=PlayList&...
SamirCanada - 3-16-2009 at 01:48 PM
I have noticed a few things,
First the oud definately has been fixed before... the poor job on the old rosette is the indication of that.
Also, if you take a good look at the finishing detail near the old beard, it seems that the old fingerboard wasn't original in the first place.
I was also going to bring up Simon Shaheen's Nahat for an example. Not many people would have said that it has lost its value because of that
fingerboard. because it kept the most important aspect which is the soundboard.
I was thinking the reason someone would add a fingerboard on top of an old one is to cope with action that has risen of the years.
It seems to me that a one piece fingerboard will stop/slow down the action from getting higher because the lower portion of the fingerboard is glued
to the face of the top and adds resistance to the string pull.
it is also a somewhat less invasive way of correcting action problems as opposed to sawing off the neck and resetting.
What do you guys think?
Luttgutt - 3-16-2009 at 02:36 PM
I think you are right about the old finger board, Samir! Something bad had happened to it from before maker!
I have to admit that, even though I understand why one would want an extended board, I never liked Shaheen's Nahat. Ebony loks too harsh on it. Maybe
palessander (rosewood) would have looked less dominant!? What do ou think?
About the new repare by maker, personally, I think the disaster comes from the fact that he has the "wings" ( what do you call those??) to the finger
board. And it looks just like a monster. Sorry :-(
suz_i_dil - 3-16-2009 at 02:49 PM
I agree with you Samir. I never thought it may also prevent or at least limit neck bending with years.
But what about the essential..
may we hear the sound dear maker ??
Repair Nahhat Oud
maker - 3-16-2009 at 03:18 PM
friends here refused the fingerboard but you did not ask why i use it?
actually this place in the (oud face) is with out Wood!!! and you can see now peice from inside the Oud (Neck block) not the (Face)
about the sound is fantastic and i will upload the record as soon as possible